Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935311

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-237672

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 3

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XII Seiten, Seiten 1102-1670

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part V. Imperial control over Dominion administration and legislation

Collection:: Economics Books

CHAP. IX] DIVORCE AND STATUS 1243 Australia Court so held in 1907! In Canada in 1887 , while discussing the Ash divorce case, the Minister of Justice? dis- tinctly adopted the doctrine of Deek v. Deek, and the Ash Bill to some extent proceeded on that view, which was also laid down in Mr. Justice Gwynne’s judgement in Stevens v. Fisk. The position in Canada is rendered curious by the fact that the divorce is granted by Act of Parliament, but it is clear that the fact that the act is a legislative one would not alter the view taken of it by a Court in this country. In 1845 the Bill of the United Provinces of Canada for the Harris divorce never received the royal assent, as it attempted to divorce a military officer only temporarily resident in Canada, who had married there, and it was pointed out by the Secretary of State that the Law Officers advised that such a divorce would not be held valid outside Canada.t Tt is important to note that the recent practice ® in Canada is to insert in the preamble of the Divorce Bills a statement that the parties were domiciled there at the time of the divorce ; it would be interesting to see how far an assertion by the Parliament of the Dominion, based on an examination by the Senate Committee, will be held in English Courts to preclude the possibility of raising the question whether in point of fact the parties were so domiciled. Tt should be said that this is a new departure, and that from some of the older Acts, for example c. 133 of 62 & 63 Vict., it would appear at least possible that domicile was not strictly regarded in the case of a deserted wife. Indeed, the Act 9 & 10 Edw. VII. c. 100 shows clearly in the preamble that the case is one of a wife whose husband has changed his domicile. It may be added that the English doctrine has frequently been expressly adopted in the self-governing Colonies, as for example in the case of the Cape of Good Hope,® in the b West Australian, J uly 2, 1907. Contra in New South Wales, Okumura v. Okumura, Age, June 24,1908. Cf. Brook v. Brook, 13 N, 8. W. L. R. Div. 9; Tappenden v. Tappenden, 25 W. N. 84. * Canada House of Commons Debates, 1887, p. 1022. 8 L.N., 42. 4 Parl. Pap., H. C. 529, 1864, p. 28. * e.g. in the Divorce Acts of 1909 and 1910. } Peters v. Peters, (1899) 9 C. T. R. 289; ex parte Bright, (1902) 12

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation